14 ms·
New Ultra Fast Lossless Audio Codec (HALAC)
- dark__paladin 3y agoNovel, but until it's open source, it will never be taken seriously.
- HakanAbbas 3y agoThere are things I should add to Halic and Halac. When I complete them and realize that it will really be used by someones, it will of course be open source.
- junon 3y agoOpen source it anyway. Things don't need to be perfect to be useful. The spirit of OSS has a lot of iteration, anyway. :)
- cchance 3y agoThis is a bad take man, "when its done" will never come having read through your comments on this you seem to really be going for some perfection in your hobby and until thats released won't release, but the issue is that rarely if ever happens, and instead of getting insights on your code and the community and yourself actually improving the landscape it's basically just a fancy exe, that no one will use actually because theres no where for it to go except in your head.
- camgunz 3y agoWhat most people do is they trademark the name, that way even though someone might fork, they have to use a different name. Something else you can do is use (A)GPL3. This means you automatically grant patent licenses, and anyone building on your work also has to release their source. You can then separately sell proprietary licenses without any of these restrictions.
- HakanAbbas 3y agoThank you very much for valuable information.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- usrme 3y agoI love how some announcements of developments still occur in good old-fashioned forums; it really warms my heart to see that. Kudos to the author for the hard work!
- HakanAbbas 3y agoThank you so much.
- Redoubts 3y agoHonestly this is one of the best technical audio forums. I always really appreciated how they take their rules seriously, like > TOS 8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must - to the best of their ability - provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.
- Ayesh 3y agohttps://archive.md/0v1qg https://archive.md/0v1qg
- p-e-w 3y agoFor what looks at first glance to be a potentially impactful development, this post and the "encode.su" one linked from it are extremely sparse on details. Where is the source code? A detailed description of what the codec actually does? References to relevant publications? All I see are two mystery Windows binaries, hosted on a forum I've never heard about. The fact that "encode.su" uses the world's most notorious domain extension doesn't inspire confidence, to put it mildly.
- brnt 3y agoHydrogenaudio is well known in this area and many new prototype codecs are announced there first. Also, the lack of source control and Windows-only binaries are very much congruent to the style of development there. See it as your confrontation with a new world, because small it is not! And later, you will learn to understand the depth of the contribution that the ffmpeg project provides :)
- p-e-w 3y agoSo people just download .exe files that they see in those forum posts and run them on their machines? New world indeed...
- userbinator 3y ago[flagged]
- piecerough 3y agoTell us more about "I don't aee anything suspicious". How exactly do you know it's not a binary that hashes all your files using a key and asks for btc to revert?
- peddling-brink 3y agoThere are libraries that would be useful for cryptography that you wouldn’t likely need in an audio codec. If the binary imports those libraries, it may be visible with a bit of prodding.
- everythingctl 3y agoCool toy and a nice piece for the CV perhaps, but it is difficult to take it seriously if you refuse to offer source code or a implementable specification. I would give you the benefit of the doubt that it might just be code shyness or perfectionism about something in its early stages, but it looks like the last codec you developed (“HALIC”) is still only available as Windows binaries after a year. I struggle to see an upside to withholding source code in a world awash with performant open source media codecs.
- HakanAbbas 3y agoYou are right about this. But there are things I should add to Halic and Halac. When I complete them and realize that it will really be used by someones, it will of course be open source.
- lifthrasiir 3y agoI understand a forward compatibility concern, but have you considered to put an attention-grabbing alert in the encoder and clearly state that official releases in the future won't be able to decompress the output? Also your concern may have been too overblown; there have been more than 100 PAQ versions with mutually incompatible formats but such issues didn't happen too often. (Not to say that ZPAQ was pointless, of course.)
- nneonneo 3y agoOne of the cool things about open source is that other people can do that for you! I've released a few bits of (rarely-used) software to open-source and been pleasantly surprised when people contribute. It helps to have a visible todo list so that new contributors know what to aim for. By the way, there will always be things to add! That feeling should not stop you from putting the source out there - you will still own it (you can license the code any way you like!) and you can choose what contributions make it in to your source. From the encode.su thread and now the HA thread, you've clearly gotten people excited, and I think that by itself means that people will be eager to try these out. Lossless codecs have a fairly low barrier for entry: you can use them without worrying about data loss by verifying that the decoder returns the original data, then just toss the originals and keep the matching decoder. So, it should be easy to get people started using the technology. Open-sourcing your projects could lead to some really interesting applications: for example, delivering lossless images on the internet is a very common need, and a WASM build of your decoder could serve as a very convenient way to serve HALIC images to web browsers directly. Some sites are already using formats like BPG in this way.
- shmerl 3y ago[flagged]
- HakanAbbas 3y agothere are things I should add to Halic and Halac. When I complete them and realize that it will really be used by someones, it will of course be open source.
- yc-kraln 3y agountil you release the source, it will never be used by someone, so I guess you are stuck in a loop and it will enver be opened.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- andrewinardeer 3y agoI'd like to test this but mum said not to download unknown .exe files from the internet.
- system2 3y agoHonestly, if they provided 100mb source code, would you read it and then compile it? Source code alone doesn't make it secure.
- p-e-w 3y agoSomething like this doesn't require 100 MB of source code. I'd expect a few thousand LoC at most. And I absolutely do at least a quick visual "sanity check" of the code before compiling and running newly announced software.
- layer8 3y agoYou can do a sanity check on exe files with VirusTotal and other tools. And if it’s just for testing, you can use a throw-away VM.
- Brian_K_White 3y agoIrrelevant. Convenient or probable doesn't matter. What matters is possible vs not possible. All it takes is one person somewhere who wants to look something over, and they heads-up the rest, and then many others do verify. And that initial one does exist even though it's not you or me, the same way the author exists, the same way that at least once in a while for some things it is you or me.
- system2 3y agoI am happy to hear everyone has plenty of free time to check all random internet open-source projects.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
- orf 3y agoThis doesn’t seem very interesting: there’s no source, the benchmarks are self reported, and the details in the forum post (??) are light at best. It’s basically just a forum post with a self-signed .exe download…
- HakanAbbas 3y agoIn this regard, you can review the HALIC link if you want. https://encode.su/threads/4025-HALIC-(High-Availability-Lossless-Image-Compression) https://encode.su/threads/4025-HALIC-(High-Availability-Loss...
- orf 3y agoI have and it’s exactly the same thing. No details, no source, unreproducible benchmarks and just ~75 people downloading the latest release[1]. There might be a good idea in there but just shoving it into a black hole is a shame. Oh well. 1. https://encode.su/threads/4025-HALIC-(High-Availability-Lossless-Image-Compression)?p=80490&viewfull=1#post80490 https://encode.su/threads/4025-HALIC-(High-Availability-Loss...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bjoli 3y agoYall should really have a look at his lossless image format. That has a spectacular compression:speed ratio. https://encode.su/threads/4025-HALIC-(High-Availability-Lossless-Image-Compression) https://encode.su/threads/4025-HALIC-(High-Availability-Loss... What interests me the most is the memory usage.
- HakanAbbas 3y agoYes, the HALIC uses quite low memory. Because independent small blocks work. Of course, this situation negatively affects the compression rate. It is a fact that I compromise on the compression rate to ensure less memory consumption.
- varispeed 3y ago[flagged]
- borgunit2 3y agoI don’t think it’s valid to exclude open source contributions. Not everyone supports their political representatives.
- ur-whale 3y ago[flagged]
- HakanAbbas 3y agoMy works are fully cross-platform. There is no restrictive situation. I also prepared Linux and ARM versions for HALIC, but I didn't compile new versions because it didn't get much attention. When my Linux test machine is ready(crashed), I compile the Linux version of HALAC.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ur-whale 3y ago> When my Linux test machine is ready(crashed) In 2024, you don't need a separate machine to run different OSes qemu is your friend
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Ghufran007 3y ago[dead]
- HakanAbbas 3y agoThank you so much.
- Ghufran007 3y agoPleasure :), Please mention it in the original post.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- HakanAbbas 3y agohttps://digialps.com/introducing-halac-new-ultra-fast-lossless-audio-codec/ https://digialps.com/introducing-halac-new-ultra-fast-lossle...
- jcalvinowens 3y agoThere's no source? It's very hard to take this seriously without source code... He explicitly says it's not SIMD, which is nice because it rules out a way of cheesing it, but still...
- karmakaze 3y agoYeah, I was about to click and read and it occurred to me that this is only of possibly theoretical interest and I'll know about later if it comes to matter. There are some areas that I follow as-it-develops, but codecs and data compression is one that I'll use when ready. Still awaiting widespread av1 support/adoption. The area most needing improvements IMO is with Bluetooth, especially Apple's support of codecs (where they're dropping support that worked in older macOS versions).
- eternityforest 3y agoPretty much any low level tech is at most a theoretical curiosity to me. I'll use it when it works in every browser and OS and average people recognize the file extension. Unusual tech seems to attract unusual bugs! Still really really impressive to beat an established standard as an individual, that doesn't happen much.
- HakanAbbas 3y agoThank you for your good thoughts
- HakanAbbas 3y agoAt this stage, what is taken seriously is quite personal. If the source code is a requirement to take it seriously; MS Windows, MS Office, Adobe, Autodesk, Oracle, Winrar and thousands of more wonderful software should not be taken seriously. Some of the SIMD optimization make compilers automatically. The others can be manually. These speeds can be obtained without using SIMD. Then there may be more with manual SIMD. I think this is what should be loved.
- Nanopolygon 3y agoHakan; Ignore the open source stuff for now. I speak as someone from within the industry. You may not listen to me and be upset later. If those who say this had done even half the work you did, be sure they wouldn't be talking like this. It seems that there is a serious effort. And your work clearly crushes other codecs. This will cause serious discomfort in some circles. I don't know much about HALIC, but it is said that it is also a very serious work. There's no point in rushing for open source. First of all, improve your work as much as you can. If serious offers come later, you can evaluate them. Don't give up control.
- sgbeal 3y agoTip for those who are looking at the compression ratios thinking "so what?": look at the run-times. It's a minimum of 3x faster than its contemporaries.
- harshreality 3y agoAccording to the author, right? Those results aren't backed up by Porcus's comments in that thread.
- fbdab103 3y agoIt seems the world made a collective yawn about flac. Hard to imagine that would change much with a new format. I personally keep everything in flac, but Bandcamp is seemingly the only service where that is a given.